Pup Biru

that’s only partly true:

economically liberal indeed means free markets and capitalism (this is why the australian conservative party is called the Liberal party)

however liberalism as a whole includes individual rights like human and civil rights, secularism, etc (this is what the US tends to define as liberal)

it’s an overloaded and imperfect term for our current global political cultures

similar applies to left and right wing:

the left are supporters of change and generally change that supports less fortunate and leads to less social hierarchy

what both these things have in common is that liberal and left wing are about change and new ideas, whilst conservative and right wing are about maintaining the status quo (or as is more currently the case, regressing to a previous status quo)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

even not a specific company: mention to all of them that it was stolen while they had a pretty limited group of people at the house

you might think it’s a case of “how would they know who there’s no point”, but people who steal things like this likely didn’t do it just once… it is, or will become a pattern of behaviour. if nobody reports it, they have no chance of identifying a pattern of behaviour to narrow down the culprit… if a company gets 2 or 3 reports of stolen items from houses that an individual employee is working at, it becomes pretty clear who the culprit could be

you even have pretty good evidence that it was stolen rather than lost: the fact that it came online for a period means someone has it and has connected it to a network and then not reported it lost

do make it clear though that you’re not insinuating that their company specifically is to blame; you just want them to know in case they have future problems. you don’t want them getting defensive, because that’s not productive for anyone

what this requires from developers: possibly documenting protocols in an open way when they choose to shut down games so that people can re-implement FOSS servers

“playable” is open to interpretation, and does not include trademarks, copyright, etc… nobody is asking for to allow assets to be traded (ie piracy), or open sourcing any code

but if you have purchased a game, and the servers for that game go away, someone else should be able to re-implement a method for allowing those games to continue being played

… also if DRM servers go away, you should disable the DRM somehow: you don’t get to just say that the DRM and therefor the game isn’t available any more

all of this is not at all knee-jerk, and very realistic

i mean they literally admit to it in the article… they need to find the “business model” to support it, which could mean a subscription and an expensive price tag… the reason isn’t because it needs ongoing support - it’s because of planned obsolescence

boo hoo we can’t make money off selling you shit every few years so we have to charge you $200 and a subscription

it’s possible, but that would seem… odd… for such a large and tech-savvy instance. there’s a lot of reasons why this isn’t a good idea, and very few technical reasons why it is

my guess is that it’s less about obscuring server location for privacy reasons as is the implications in this thread, and more about handling changes cleanly or something like that - in which case, sure it obscures the server location but more that it makes the server “location” (or hardware, etc) irrelevant and fungible

a reverse proxy these days is pretty much just a requirement of any dynamic service. they often run on the same host as the software

hello welcome to my new venture capital firm: we specialise in funding game studios where 90% of the staff got fired in an acquisition turned shutdown

anyone who enables a company whose “values” lead to prompts like this doesn’t get to use the (invalid) “just following orders” defence

it’s possible it was generated by multiple people. when i craft my prompts i have a big list of things that mean certain things and i essentially concatenate the 5 ways to say “present all dates in ISO8601” (a standard for presenting machine-readable date times)… it’s possible that it’s simply something like

prompt = allow_bias_prompts + allow_free_thinking_prompts + allow_topics_prompts

or something like that

but you’re right it’s more likely that whoever wrote this is a dim as a pile of bricks and has no self awareness or ability for internal reflection

bested by intels euv chips

source? last i heard intel received an euv tool from asml but certainly haven’t produced anything with it - that’s slated for next year earliest, and until it hits mass production all numbers are just marketing

intel and apple aren’t aiming for the same things - apples chip designs arent generic. they target building an apple device… which means that it will run an apple device incredibly efficiently - gpu vs gpu m series chips are fine, cpu vs cpu they’re among the top of the range, and at everything they do they’re incredibly efficient (because apple devices are about small, cool, battery-saving)… and they certainly don’t optimise for cost

what they do better than anyone else is produce an ultralight device made for running macos, or a phone made for running ios - the coprocessors etc they put onto their SoCs that offload from their generalised processors

you wouldn’t say that honeywell is “bested” by intel because intel cpus are faster… that’s not the goal of things like radiation hardened cpus

not to mention reading to make sure there isn’t a “fucks up your day on a leap year” error

it’ll eventually get there, but we’re a while off

“replace” is, as always, oversimplified… the job of programming will likely change for sure. programming languages will be built around AI generation, and programming will become prompt creation that looks at the big picture rather than the minutiae of code: just like it did when we stopped coding in ASM and started coding in higher order languages, or scripting languages, etc

peer to peer is an option too

but you can’t interact with instagram users. AFAIK the DMA will require instagram etc to provide a gateway for services like pixelfed to interoperable with

branding

okay

the marketing

yup

the plagiarism

woah there! that’s where we disagree… your position is based on the fact that you believe that this is plagiarism - inherently negative

perhaps its best not use loaded language. if we want to have a good faith discussion, it’s best to avoid emotive arguments and language that’s designed to evoke negativity simply by their use, rather than the argument being presented

I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer

its understandable that it’s frustrating, but just because a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human doesn’t make it inherently wrong. it might be useful for you to reframe these developments - it’s not taking away from humans, it’s enabling humans… the less a human has to have skill to get what’s in their head into an expressive medium for someone to consume the better imo! art and creativity shouldn’t be about having an ability - the closer we get to pure expression the better imo!

the less you have to worry about the technicalities of writing, the more you can focus on pure creativity

The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they’ve admitted that it couldn’t work as well as it does without stealing other people’s work

i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

so, why is it unethical for a machine but not a human to absorb information and create something based on its “experiences”?

“Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet

that’s far from definitive. another definition is

A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

but since we aren’t arguing semantics, it doesn’t really matter exactly, other than the fact that it’s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesn’t make it the only truth

of course i didn’t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists i’m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we don’t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; that’s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

it’s not abstracted; it’s simplified… if what you’re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be “abstracted” so much it “becomes wrong”, which is categorically untrue… it’s an incomplete picture, but that doesn’t make it either wrong or abstract

*edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didn’t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that it’s simply a belief, however it’s a belief that’s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree that’s fine but don’t act like you have some “evidence” or “proof” to back up your claims… all we’re talking about here is belief, because we simply don’t know - neither you nor i

and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, that’s not a violation

if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, you’re arguing that is a violation

the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something “more” than a probabilistic model going on… but again, that’s far from certain

but that’s just a matter of complexity, not fundamental difference. the way our brains work and the way an artificial neural network work aren’t that different; just that our brains are beyond many orders of magnitude bigger

there’s no particular reason why we can’t feed artificial neural networks an enormous amount of … let’s say tangentially related experiential information … as well, but in order to be efficient and make them specialise in the things we want, we only feed them information that’s directly related to the specialty we want them to perform

there’s some… “pre training” or “pre-existing state” that exists with humans too that comes from genetics, but i’d argue that’s as relevant to the actual task of learning, comprehension, and creating as a BIOS is to running an operating system (that is, a necessary precondition to ensure the correct functioning of our body with our brain, but not actually what you’d call the main function)

i’m also not claiming that an LLM is intelligent (or rather i’d prefer to use the term self aware because intelligent is pretty nebulous); just that the structure it has isn’t that much different to our brains just on a level that’s so much smaller and so much more generic that you can’t expect it to perform as well as a human - you wouldn’t expect to cut out 99% of a humans brain and have them be able to continue to function at the same level either

i guess the core of what i’m getting at is that the self awareness that humans have is definitely not present in an LLM, however i don’t think that self-awareness is necessarily a pre-requisite for most things that we call creativity. i think that’s it’s entirely possible for an artificial neural net that’s fundamentally the same technology that we use today to be able to ingest the same data that a human would from birth, and to have very similar outcomes… given that belief (and i’m very aware that it certainly is just a belief - we aren’t close to understanding our brains, but i don’t fundamentally thing there’s anything other then neurons firing that results in the human condition), just because you simplify and specialise the input data doesn’t mean that the process is different. you could argue that it’s lesser, for sure, but to rule out that it can create a legitimately new work is definitely premature

you know how the neurons in our brain work, right?

because if not, well, it’s pretty similar… unless you say there’s a soul (in which case we can’t really have a conversation based on fact alone), we’re just big ol’ probability machines with tuned weights based on past experiences too

it’s so baffling to me that some people think this is a clear cut problem of “you stole the work just the same as if you sold a copy without paying me!”

it ain’t the same folks… that’s not how models work… the outcome is unfortunate, for sure, but to just straight out argue that it’s the same is ludicrous… it’s a new problem and ML isn’t going away, so we’re going to have to deal with it as a new problem